Home » Forums » Daily Paul Liberty Forum

4 votes

SC Primary Race was Rigged thanks to Electronic Voting

Submitted by Ind4RP on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 14:41
in

Watch the video to see how they pull it off...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OynCg...!


»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Quit spreading this video

Submitted by GreyWyvern on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 17:32.

2381 taken randomly throughout a state is a perfectly valid sample size to get 95% confidence with +/- 3% margin of error.

This video is essentially FUD exploiting lack of understanding of statistics. So yes, they were a little underhanded in jumping the gun just on their exit poll, and maybe (just maybe) they fiddled with the numbers WITHIN that exit poll, but you can't discredit the way they did their statistics and the conclusions they drew from them.

Let this video die, please.

Can you explain

Submitted by zeeon on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 18:05.

the mathematics in detail please? My father, who has a Master's degree in Mathematics has run those numbers, and he's telling me it's statistically impossible to determine a winner based on those numbers.

Furthermore, interestingly enough - a direct quote from Edison Research Group says they use stratification based on voter characteristics from past elections.

I quote
How do you select sample precincts?

Precincts are selected as a stratified probability sample of each state. The purpose of stratification is to group together precincts with similar vote characteristics. A recent past election is used to identify all precincts as they existed for that election. The total vote in each precinct and the partisan division of the vote from this past race are used for the stratification. In addition, counties are used for stratifying the precincts. The total vote also is used to determine the probability of selection. Each voter in a state has approximately the same chance of being selected in the sample.
http://www.edisonresearch.com/election-research-services/exi...

So, actually - you sir are wrong and they don't just use pure statisical analysis to determine the "victor".

I can certainly explain

Submitted by GreyWyvern on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 18:38.

Your father, who has a Master's degree in Mathematics, should go back and re-examine his education. I have my own degree, thanks very much, and know a thing or two about statistics.

As populations become sufficiently large, say over 10,000, the sample size required becomes increasing dissociated with the population as a whole. With a populations the size of South Carolina, the number of people actually voting is almost entirely irrelevant. 40 billion people could have been voting and 2381 would have been a justifiable sample size. The KEY is that the samples were taken randomly.

For your average opinion poll, the sample size required for a 95% confidence interval with a certain error bound is given by the equation s = 1/(E^2) where E is the error bound required. Note that the entire population size is not a variable! If we want a margin of error of 3% the equation is as follows:

s = 1/(0.03^2)
s = 1/0.0009
s = 1111.11

So only 1111 people needed to be sampled to get a snapshot of the entire population that is within 3% of the actual value 95% of the time.

We can also do the reverse and determine the margin of error of a sample size of 2381 people.

2381 = 1/E^2
E^2 = 1/2381
E^2 = 0.00042
E = 0.020

Or +/- 2%. So the people doing the poll were actually erring on the side of caution with their +/- 3% qualifier, likely due to some respondents not answering, or accounting for people lying about who they voted for.

So in conclusion, this video makes the claim that what seems like a very small sample size cannot possibly be representative of a large population when in fact this is actually the case. THIS IS WHY WE USE STATISTICS. So we don't need to ask 400,000 people to get an idea what 40 million are thinking. A relatively small sample is a proven reliable indicator of opinion of the entire population. Always within a specified amount of error, of course.

In the future, I would appreciate you not knee-jerk voting down comments just because you disagree with them instead of taking the time to understand what they are saying and coming to an actual logical conclusion.

Cheers.

man, this sounds like the same

Submitted by gptnomoney on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 18:16.

riggamortis math they teach in Hades

Well

Submitted by zeeon on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 17:19.

I was on the fence with this voter fraud stuff. After seeing this video, and the evidence presented - I've been swayed to support the idea that our election system is rigged.

I'm utterly shocked right now. The evidence presented tells it like it is. I have to do some research on my own to see this connection to the Edison Research Group and the Voter News Service but if it does pan out....God help us.

Not that I'm shocked the MSM lies to a certain extent...I've known that for quite a while - but the audacity of telling bold faced LIES right on the Air is just well...it's just unimaginable.

Thanks for posting this. I'm truly glad I watched it.